Sharyl Attkisson: ‘Government Hacked Me” | msnbc


>>>SFOFORMER CBS NEWS
CORRESPONDENT CHERYL ATKINSON IS CORRESPONDENT CHERYL ATKINSON IS
OUT WITH A NEW BOOK CALLED OUT WITH A NEW BOOK CALLED
“STONE WALLED” THAT THE U.S. “STONE WALLED” THAT THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT HACKED INTO HER HOME GOVERNMENT HACKED INTO HER HOME
AND COMPUTERS IN AN ATTEMPT TO AND COMPUTERS IN AN ATTEMPT TO
INTERFERE WITH HER REREPORTING. INTERFERE WITH HER REREPORTING.
A CBS EXECUTIVE CAME TO DOUBT A CBS EXECUTIVE CAME TO DOUBT
THE IMPARTIALITY OF HER THE IMPARTIALITY OF HER
REPORTING, CONSERVATIVE GROUPS REPORTING, CONSERVATIVE GROUPS
HONORED ATKINSON AS A MAINSTREAM HONORED ATKINSON AS A MAINSTREAM
ALLY. ALLY.
SHE CONTRIBUTES HER NEWS TO A SHE CONTRIBUTES HER NEWS TO A
COMBINATION OF LIBERAL BIAS AND COMBINATION OF LIBERAL BIAS AND
A NETWORK AFRAID TO ANCHOR A NETWORK AFRAID TO ANCHOR
POWERFUL FORCES. POWERFUL FORCES.
SHE MAINTAINS THE NETWORK SHE MAINTAINS THE NETWORK
INCREASINGLY REFUSED TO AIR HER INCREASINGLY REFUSED TO AIR HER
STORIES ON BENGHAZI THOUGH IN STORIES ON BENGHAZI THOUGH IN
ALL ANALYSIS, THEY’VE RAN MORE ALL ANALYSIS, THEY’VE RAN MORE
NEWSCASTS ON BENGHAZI. NEWSCASTS ON BENGHAZI.
>>SO THERE’S THIS CLAIM ABOUT >>SO THERE’S THIS CLAIM ABOUT
HACKING IN THE BOOK THAT’S THE HACKING IN THE BOOK THAT’S THE
SORT OF THE CENTER OF THE BOOK. SORT OF THE CENTER OF THE BOOK.
AND IN RESPONSE TO PEOPLE AND IN RESPONSE TO PEOPLE
QUESTIONING IT OR WANTING QUESTIONING IT OR WANTING
FURTHER CORROBORATION, YOU FURTHER CORROBORATION, YOU
RELEASED THIS CELL PHONE VIDEO. RELEASED THIS CELL PHONE VIDEO.
I THINK WE HAVE IT. I THINK WE HAVE IT.
COULD WE SHOW THAT VIDEO FOR A COULD WE SHOW THAT VIDEO FOR A
SECOND? SECOND?
>>SO THIS, AS YOU SEE, IT’S >>SO THIS, AS YOU SEE, IT’S
LIKE A WORD DOCUMENT. LIKE A WORD DOCUMENT.
THERE’S JUST WORDS BEING ERASED. THERE’S JUST WORDS BEING ERASED.
SERIOUSLY, YOUR HANDS AREN’T ON SERIOUSLY, YOUR HANDS AREN’T ON
THE KEYBOARD. THE KEYBOARD.
THERE’S JUST WORDS BEING ERASED THERE’S JUST WORDS BEING ERASED
RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, WHICH, AS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, WHICH, AS
A WRITER, WOULD BE TERRIFYING, A WRITER, WOULD BE TERRIFYING,
ACTUALLY. ACTUALLY.
I COULD THINK OF NOTHING MORE I COULD THINK OF NOTHING MORE
TERRIFYING. TERRIFYING.
>>>BUT IS THE CLAIM OF SOME >>>BUT IS THE CLAIM OF SOME
GOVERNMENT ENTITY HACKING YOUR GOVERNMENT ENTITY HACKING YOUR
COMPUTER IN REALTIME? COMPUTER IN REALTIME?
>>NO. >>NO.
THANK YOU FOR ASKING. THANK YOU FOR ASKING.
AND IT WAS NOT RELEASED, JUST TO AND IT WAS NOT RELEASED, JUST TO
CLARIFY IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CLARIFY IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE CASE, FOR EXAMPLE. ABOUT THE CASE, FOR EXAMPLE.
IT WAS JUST A VIDEO PRE-RELEASED IT WAS JUST A VIDEO PRE-RELEASED
BEFORE THE BOOK CAME OUT. BEFORE THE BOOK CAME OUT.
THAT I WOULD CALL A VISUAL THAT I WOULD CALL A VISUAL
ANECDOTE OF SOMETHING THAT ANECDOTE OF SOMETHING THAT
HAPPENED SOME MONTHS AFTER THE HAPPENED SOME MONTHS AFTER THE
THREE COMPUTER FORENSICS EXAMS THREE COMPUTER FORENSICS EXAMS
CONFIRMED THESE ISLELY CONFIRMED THESE ISLELY
SOPHISTICATED REMOTE INTRUSIONS. SOPHISTICATED REMOTE INTRUSIONS.
HACKING IS ONE WAY TO CALL IT, I HACKING IS ONE WAY TO CALL IT, I
GUESS. GUESS.
BUT I CONSIDER IT AS BUT I CONSIDER IT AS
NON-TECHNICAL PERSON, A NON-TECHNICAL PERSON, A
LONG-TERM MONITORING AND LONG-TERM MONITORING AND
SURVEILLANCE BASED ON THE DATES SURVEILLANCE BASED ON THE DATES
THAT THE COMPUTER FORENSICS THAT THE COMPUTER FORENSICS
SHOWED. SHOWED.
>>I JUST WANT TO CONNECT THE >>I JUST WANT TO CONNECT THE
VIDEO TO THAT. VIDEO TO THAT.
YOU THINK IT’S AN INSTANCE OF YOU THINK IT’S AN INSTANCE OF
SOME REMOTE SURVEILLANCE. SOME REMOTE SURVEILLANCE.
>>THE VIDEO WAS AN INSTANCE OF >>THE VIDEO WAS AN INSTANCE OF
WHEN I WAS WORKING AT HOME, AT A WHEN I WAS WORKING AT HOME, AT A
TIME IN PARTICULAR, FACING A LOT TIME IN PARTICULAR, FACING A LOT
OF SPECIFIC PUSHBACK AND OF SPECIFIC PUSHBACK AND
PROBLEMS OF THE WHITE HOUSE, IN PROBLEMS OF THE WHITE HOUSE, IN
FACT, THAT DAY, IN PARTICULAR, FACT, THAT DAY, IN PARTICULAR,
OF WHICH THE ACCESS OF MY OF WHICH THE ACCESS OF MY
COMPUTER, I COULDN’T CONTROL IT COMPUTER, I COULDN’T CONTROL IT
FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.
AND ALTHOUGH SOME PEOPLE HAVE AND ALTHOUGH SOME PEOPLE HAVE
KIND OF MISTAKINGLY, WITHOUT THE KIND OF MISTAKINGLY, WITHOUT THE
FORENSICS OF THE CONTEXT FORENSICS OF THE CONTEXT
ANALYZED IT. ANALYZED IT.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED WAS PAGES WHAT REALLY HAPPENED WAS PAGES
WERE WIPING IN A MATTER OF A WERE WIPING IN A MATTER OF A
COUPLE OF SECONDS. COUPLE OF SECONDS.
IT WASN’T SORT OF A BACKSPACE IT WASN’T SORT OF A BACKSPACE
KEY OR A DELETE KEY ON THE KEY OR A DELETE KEY ON THE
COMPUTER BEING HELD DOWN. COMPUTER BEING HELD DOWN.
>>THERE’S BEEN A NUMBER OF >>THERE’S BEEN A NUMBER OF
ACCOUNTS OF PEOPLE LOOKING AT ACCOUNTS OF PEOPLE LOOKING AT
THIS THIRD HAND, COMPUTER THIS THIRD HAND, COMPUTER
EXPERTS SAYING THIS LOOKS LIKE EXPERTS SAYING THIS LOOKS LIKE
SOMEONE WITH A STUCK KEY OR SOMEONE WITH A STUCK KEY OR
SOMETHING. SOMETHING.
I GUESS MY QUESTION ABOUT THIS I GUESS MY QUESTION ABOUT THIS
VIDEO IS THIS IS A REALLY BIG VIDEO IS THIS IS A REALLY BIG
CLAIM. CLAIM.
IT’S NOT A CLAIM THAT’S IT’S NOT A CLAIM THAT’S
IMPLAUSIBLE ON ITS FACE THE IMPLAUSIBLE ON ITS FACE THE
GOVERNMENT WOULD HACK INTO A GOVERNMENT WOULD HACK INTO A
REPORTER’S COMPUTER. REPORTER’S COMPUTER.
THAT SEEMED I COULD BE PERSUADED THAT SEEMED I COULD BE PERSUADED
BY THAT CLAIM. BY THAT CLAIM.
PARTICULARLY THE IDEA THAT LIVE PARTICULARLY THE IDEA THAT LIVE
AS YOU’RE WATCHING, SOMEONE IS AS YOU’RE WATCHING, SOMEONE IS
REMOTELY — PRESUMMABLELY THAT REMOTELY — PRESUMMABLELY THAT
YOU’VE LOADED THIS FILE, YOU’VE LOADED THIS FILE,
REMOTELY DELETING YOUR TEXT IN REMOTELY DELETING YOUR TEXT IN
FRONT OF YOU, WHAT IS THE FRONT OF YOU, WHAT IS THE
EVIDENCE OF THAT HAPPENING? EVIDENCE OF THAT HAPPENING?
>>YOU MEAN BESIDES MED >>YOU MEAN BESIDES MED
OBSERVING IT HAPPENING? OBSERVING IT HAPPENING?
>>WELL, COMPUTERS DO CRAZY >>WELL, COMPUTERS DO CRAZY
THINGS ALL OF THE TIME. THINGS ALL OF THE TIME.
LIKE MY COMPUTER WILL DO NUTTY LIKE MY COMPUTER WILL DO NUTTY
THINGS WHERE I WENT THROUGH THINGS WHERE I WENT THROUGH
PERIODS WHERE MY LAPTOP WAS PERIODS WHERE MY LAPTOP WAS
CLICKING ON STUFF I WASN’T CLICKING ON STUFF I WASN’T
CLICKING ON AND I DIDN’T THINK CLICKING ON AND I DIDN’T THINK
THERE’S THE NSA. THERE’S THE NSA.
>>AND CERTAINLY I DIDN’T WHEN >>AND CERTAINLY I DIDN’T WHEN
THINGS WERE HAPPENING THE YEAR THINGS WERE HAPPENING THE YEAR
BEFORE. BEFORE.
IT WAS ONLY AFTER SOURCES AND IT WAS ONLY AFTER SOURCES AND
THEN THE COMPUTER FORENSICS THEN THE COMPUTER FORENSICS
EXAM. EXAM.
SO WITH THAT CONTEXT, THE MONTHS SO WITH THAT CONTEXT, THE MONTHS
OF TIME THAT PASSED AFTER THAT OF TIME THAT PASSED AFTER THAT
UNDER WHICH I WAS GETTING MORE UNDER WHICH I WAS GETTING MORE
AND MORE FORENSIC EVIDENCE ABOUT AND MORE FORENSIC EVIDENCE ABOUT
WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND WHAT WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND WHAT
THEY WERE CAPABLE OF. THEY WERE CAPABLE OF.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT FORENSICS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT FORENSICS
EVIDENCE SHOWED WAS ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE SHOWED WAS ALTHOUGH
THEY WERE MONITORING ME THEY WERE MONITORING ME
SURREPTITIOUSLY, THEY HAD THE SURREPTITIOUSLY, THEY HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO MONITOR ME OPPORTUNITY TO MONITOR ME
REMOTELY AS IF E I WAS SITTING REMOTELY AS IF E I WAS SITTING
IN FROPT OF IT. IN FROPT OF IT.
>>I’M SORRY. >>I’M SORRY.
LET ME JUST ASK THIS QUESTION. LET ME JUST ASK THIS QUESTION.
WHO IS THE THEY? WHO IS THE THEY?
>>IN WHICH SENTENCE, I’M SORRY.>>IN WHICH SENTENCE, I’M SORRY.
>>THE “THEY WERE ABLE TO >>THE “THEY WERE ABLE TO
SURVEIL.” SURVEIL.”
WHO IS THE THEY? WHO IS THE THEY?
>>WHOEVER IT WOULD BE THAT IS >>WHOEVER IT WOULD BE THAT IS
RESPONSIBLE. RESPONSIBLE.
>>BUT WHO IS THAT? >>BUT WHO IS THAT?
>>THEREIN LIES THE QUESTION. >>THEREIN LIES THE QUESTION.
I THINK THAT THAT’S A LARGE PART I THINK THAT THAT’S A LARGE PART
OF WHAT THE COMPUTER FORENSICS OF WHAT THE COMPUTER FORENSICS
INVESTIGATION IS AIMING TOWARD. INVESTIGATION IS AIMING TOWARD.
>>YOU WRITE IN THE BOOK THAT >>YOU WRITE IN THE BOOK THAT
THE SOURCE TOLD YOU WHO IT WAS, THE SOURCE TOLD YOU WHO IT WAS,
RIGHT? RIGHT?
>>YES, YES. >>YES, YES.
>>SO THEN YOU SHOULD — THEN >>SO THEN YOU SHOULD — THEN
YOU KNOW. YOU KNOW.
>>I THINK I KNOW WHO WAS >>I THINK I KNOW WHO WAS
RESPONSIBLE IN THE MACRO SENSE RESPONSIBLE IN THE MACRO SENSE
FOR BEING BEHIND THE EFFORT. FOR BEING BEHIND THE EFFORT.
NOT NECESSARILY THE GUY SITTING NOT NECESSARILY THE GUY SITTING
BEHIND THE KEYBOARD IF SUCH A BEHIND THE KEYBOARD IF SUCH A
THING EXISTS. THING EXISTS.
THAT WAS BASED ON A HUMAN SOURCE THAT WAS BASED ON A HUMAN SOURCE
THAT I TRUST AND IT’S NOT THAT I TRUST AND IT’S NOT
SOMETHING THAT I’M COMFORTABLE SOMETHING THAT I’M COMFORTABLE
WITH NAMING AND RELEASING. WITH NAMING AND RELEASING.
>>SO THERE’S ONE SOURCE WHO >>SO THERE’S ONE SOURCE WHO
TOLD YOU UNNAMED WHO IS DOING TOLD YOU UNNAMED WHO IS DOING
THIS TO YOUR COMPUTER OR WHO IS THIS TO YOUR COMPUTER OR WHO IS
ENGINEERING WHAT YOU SAY IS THE ENGINEERING WHAT YOU SAY IS THE
SURVEILLANCE OF THE COMPUTER? SURVEILLANCE OF THE COMPUTER?
>>THAT’S RIGHT. >>THAT’S RIGHT.
>>NOW, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT >>NOW, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT
THIS — WELL, YOU DON’T WANT TO THIS — WELL, YOU DON’T WANT TO
NAME THAT PERSON OR EXPOSE THAT NAME THAT PERSON OR EXPOSE THAT
SOURCE? SOURCE?
>>I JUST HAVE REASONS. >>I JUST HAVE REASONS.
I’M FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF MY I’M FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF MY
ATTORNEY. ATTORNEY.
I’M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH I’M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH
USING THE NAME RIGHT NOW. USING THE NAME RIGHT NOW.
I DON’T THINK IT’S A GOOD IDEA. I DON’T THINK IT’S A GOOD IDEA.
>>CHERYL, HERE’S MY QUESTION TO>>CHERYL, HERE’S MY QUESTION TO
YOU. YOU.
YOU’RE A REPORTER, YOU’RE A YOU’RE A REPORTER, YOU’RE A
DOGGED REPORTER, AS SHOWN IN THE DOGGED REPORTER, AS SHOWN IN THE
BOOK. BOOK.
THERE’S THAT OLD SAYING AS AN THERE’S THAT OLD SAYING AS AN
EDITOR, IF YOUR MOTHER SAYS SHE EDITOR, IF YOUR MOTHER SAYS SHE
LOVES YOU, CHECK IT OUT. LOVES YOU, CHECK IT OUT.
THERE’S THAT FEELING THAT BIG THERE’S THAT FEELING THAT BIG
CLAIMS MEAN BIG CORROBORATION. CLAIMS MEAN BIG CORROBORATION.
IT JUST SEEMS WHEN I’M GOING IT JUST SEEMS WHEN I’M GOING
THROUGH YOUR BOOK AND I’M THROUGH YOUR BOOK AND I’M
WATCHING THE INTERVIEWS, IT’S, WATCHING THE INTERVIEWS, IT’S,
LIKE, THERE’S SOME UNNAMED LIKE, THERE’S SOME UNNAMED
FORENSIC EXPERTS. FORENSIC EXPERTS.
I CAN’T TALK TO THEM. I CAN’T TALK TO THEM.
THERE’S ONE GUY WHO’S NAMED, BUT THERE’S ONE GUY WHO’S NAMED, BUT
HE HAS A CONFIDENTIALITY HE HAS A CONFIDENTIALITY
AGREEMENT. AGREEMENT.
AND SO THERE’S AN UNNAMED AND SO THERE’S AN UNNAMED
SOURCE. SOURCE.
MAYBE IT’S TRUE, BUT IT JUST MAYBE IT’S TRUE, BUT IT JUST
SEEMS SO IMPOSSIBLE TO SEEMS SO IMPOSSIBLE TO
INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THAT WHAT INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THAT WHAT
YOU ARE ALLEGING, WHICH IS A YOU ARE ALLEGING, WHICH IS A
REALLY BIG DEAL CRIME COMMITTED REALLY BIG DEAL CRIME COMMITTED
AGAINST YOU AND A VIOLATION OF AGAINST YOU AND A VIOLATION OF
THE CONSTITUTION, THAT THERE’S THE CONSTITUTION, THAT THERE’S
NOTHING I COULD HOLD ONTO TO NOTHING I COULD HOLD ONTO TO
KIND OF DOUBLE CHECK THE WORK? KIND OF DOUBLE CHECK THE WORK?
>>I GET IT AND I WILL SAY TWO >>I GET IT AND I WILL SAY TWO
THINGS TO THAT. THINGS TO THAT.
I THINK THERE WILL BE MORE I THINK THERE WILL BE MORE
INFORMATION FORT COMING. INFORMATION FORT COMING.
SOME PEOPLE WILL NEVER BE SATSZ SOME PEOPLE WILL NEVER BE SATSZ
FILLED WITH WHAT THEY HEAR. FILLED WITH WHAT THEY HEAR.
BUT I ALSO THINK I’VE SEEN BUT I ALSO THINK I’VE SEEN
PEOPLE WHO ASK QUESTIONS KEEP A PEOPLE WHO ASK QUESTIONS KEEP A
GREAT DEAL OF UNDERSTANDABLE GREAT DEAL OF UNDERSTANDABLE
SKE SKE
SKEPTICISM ON ME AND NONE OF THE SKEPTICISM ON ME AND NONE OF THE
ENTITIES RAISING WITH THE ENTITIES RAISING WITH THE
SO-CALLED COUNTER EXPERTS, TO MY SO-CALLED COUNTER EXPERTS, TO MY
SURPRISE, WOULD BE WILLING TO SURPRISE, WOULD BE WILLING TO
EXPERT AN OPINION ON SOMETHING EXPERT AN OPINION ON SOMETHING
FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NO FORENSIC FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NO FORENSIC
EVIDENCE AND NO FIRST HAND EVIDENCE AND NO FIRST HAND
INFORMATION. INFORMATION.
AND, YET, THEIR CLAIMS BEING UNE AND, YET, THEIR CLAIMS BEING UNE
KWIF CABLY ACCEPTED AND WITHOUT KWIF CABLY ACCEPTED AND WITHOUT
THEIR QUESTIO THEIR QUESTIO
THEIR CREDENTIALS BEING THEIR CREDENTIALS BEING
QUESTIONED. QUESTIONED.
THAT’S PART OF THE PROBLEM I THAT’S PART OF THE PROBLEM I
DISCUSS IN THE BOOK. DISCUSS IN THE BOOK.
>>THERE’S A LITTLE BIT OF AN >>THERE’S A LITTLE BIT OF AN
ASYMMETRY. ASYMMETRY.
AND, AGAIN, I WANT TO BE VERY AND, AGAIN, I WANT TO BE VERY
CLEAR ABOUT THIS. CLEAR ABOUT THIS.
THE IDEA THAT THE U.S. THE IDEA THAT THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT WOULD SURVEIL OR HACK GOVERNMENT WOULD SURVEIL OR HACK
INTO THE COMPUTER OF A INTO THE COMPUTER OF A
JOURNALIST IS A, BOTH A SERIOUS JOURNALIST IS A, BOTH A SERIOUS
ACCUSATION AND, B, NOT TO ME ACCUSATION AND, B, NOT TO ME
RIDICULOUS OR IMPLAUSIBLE AND RIDICULOUS OR IMPLAUSIBLE AND
THE KIND OF THING YOU SHOULD THE KIND OF THING YOU SHOULD
JUST SCHLUP OFF. JUST SCHLUP OFF.
I COULD SEE THAT HAPPENINGMENT I COULD SEE THAT HAPPENINGMENT
WE KNOW THE POWERS THE NSA HAS. WE KNOW THE POWERS THE NSA HAS.
>>>BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS >>>BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS
IS THERE ANY WAY THAT ME, CHRIS IS THERE ANY WAY THAT ME, CHRIS
HAYES, CAN TALK TO SOMEONE? HAYES, CAN TALK TO SOMEONE?
IS THERE AN INDEPENDENT FORENSIC IS THERE AN INDEPENDENT FORENSIC
EXPERT THAT I CAN SIT AT THE EXPERT THAT I CAN SIT AT THE
COMPUTER WITH? COMPUTER WITH?
IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN
CONFIRM THIS IN A PUBLICLY CONFIRM THIS IN A PUBLICLY
ACCESSIBLE WAY? ACCESSIBLE WAY?
>>I THINK THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT >>I THINK THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT
A PARTIAL PRESS RELEASE THAT A PARTIAL PRESS RELEASE THAT
PARTIALLY DISCUSSES ONE OF THE PARTIALLY DISCUSSES ONE OF THE
THREE FORENSIC EXAMS THAT CBS THREE FORENSIC EXAMS THAT CBS
NEWS PUT OUT THAT CONFIRMED WHAT NEWS PUT OUT THAT CONFIRMED WHAT
I GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL I GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL
ABOUT IN MY BOOK. ABOUT IN MY BOOK.
I THINK THESE HINTS OF I THINK THESE HINTS OF
INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE THAT
CORROBORATE WHAT I SAY, YES, CORROBORATE WHAT I SAY, YES,
THEN THERE MAY BE, AT THIS POINT THEN THERE MAY BE, AT THIS POINT
IN TIME, WHAT FOR SOMEONE LIKE IN TIME, WHAT FOR SOMEONE LIKE
YOU WOULD REQUIRE A LEAP OF YOU WOULD REQUIRE A LEAP OF
FAITH. FAITH.
AND YOU’RE CERTAINLY WITHIN YOUR AND YOU’RE CERTAINLY WITHIN YOUR
RIGHT TO SAY HEY, I DON’T SEE RIGHT TO SAY HEY, I DON’T SEE
THE EVIDENCE THERE. THE EVIDENCE THERE.
I’M NOT HERE TRYING TO CONVINCE I’M NOT HERE TRYING TO CONVINCE
YOU OF SOMETHING THAT YOU FIND YOU OF SOMETHING THAT YOU FIND
UNCONVINCING. UNCONVINCING.
I’M JUST TELLING YOU, IN THIS I’M JUST TELLING YOU, IN THIS
BOOK, MY EXPERIENCES AND BOOK, MY EXPERIENCES AND
OBSERVATIONS AND YOU CAN DO WITH OBSERVATIONS AND YOU CAN DO WITH
THAT WHAT YOU WILL. THAT WHAT YOU WILL.
>>WHEN WE COME BACK, MY SECOND >>WHEN WE COME BACK, MY SECOND
HALF OF THE INTERVIEW




Comments
  1. The very last thing that was said in this video is hilarious.

    She was being accused of pulling this little stunt with her book and claiming she was  being hacked so that she could get a job with Fox News???
    Now that is funny. I dont need to watch John Stewart to get a good laugh.
    All I need to do is tune in to a regular MSNBC "news" report.
    Would I be crazy in assuming that most of "these people" who are making this accusation work for MSNBC?
    I dunno.
    Maybe its just the mocha-latte-triple whipped cream-chocolate drizzle, with coco nut sprinkles talking.

  2. The left wing progressive press will never concede the wrongs of a left wing progressive President whomever he or she may be.
    Want more government lies, corruption and trampling of individuals civil rights? Keep voting progressive.

  3. Chris..wake up!! You are a total idiot embarrassing yourself…You are such a low slimmy slug…that whatever your trying to do there in your interview with Sheryl, actually borders on whatever the opposite of true journalism is called and just goes on to prove that you are nothing more than the sub terranian larva offspring that was indeed conceived and brought into this existence only because Chris Mathews after a night of drunken stupor didn't have the muster, will power or strength that was so desperatly needed to pull himself out from the dark spooky recesses of what is Candy Crowley's deep dark cravase…What a pity Chris! but Momma Crow was proud who raised you to be all grown up as big-boy who we now in horror, sit back and watch amazed that you are intelligent enough to regurgitate mindless dribble and lies you read from the nightly tele-prompter…

  4. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHMZ_enUS307US307&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=remote+assistance&spell=1

  5. Try some truth your wrong. This administration is and has subverted the truth over and over again and has his henchmen cover his trail. Most recently his giant error of training a traitor for 5 Generals of islamic terror! The Barry administration is holing the Army from announcing its findings to help with Barry's legacy. Barry disavows the label terrorists or jihad . Even took it out of training manuals for thre I and CIA
    Barry and his closed method of governing ( transparent my as s )
    Looks much like Putinland! Physically repressing a free press should be taken VERY seriously. This situation with the Gov. Hacking her computer is much worse than watergate. Impeach the Bstard and run him out on a rail back to corrupt Chicago!

  6. It would be nice if Hayes would at least pronounce her name correctly:  It's At-KISS- son, not At-KIN-son.  That just demonstrates how little he is really interested in interviewing her.

  7. I can do this on my laptop right now using my wireless mouse. Hell, I can do this from my phone if I have TeamViewer turned on my laptop and my Android device

  8. how refreshing that this interviewer understands the corroboration needed for good journalism…..if only he practiced it when being fed Administration Propaganda….hard scrutiny of anything said by a Republican, bobble head agreement with anything said by a Democrat is NOT good journalism.

  9. This was THE worst interview I have ever seen. She said she had forensic evidence from computer analysts that someone was remote hacking her. After learning that, he should have had other questions but he wouldn't stop. She said she even had a source as to who it was but wasn't going to say it yet. Thats when he should have moved on. This wasn't an interview, it was a thurd degree session of badgering. Ive NEVER seen such a horrible interview on what is supposed to be a professional news channel!

  10. I thought this interview was very tough but fair. If the same degree of scrutiny that Chris aims at Sharyl were put on say Hillary Clinton and Hillary's telling the parents of the fallen heroes of Benghazi that a video was responsible for their deaths…. well, let's all admit that Chris Hayes is acting like a journalist here, and to those his network orders him to protect, he's not going to even put his journalist hat on at all… for those stories, he puts on his propagandist hat. Sharyl, by contrast, has the integrity Chris entirely lacks.

  11. Love you sheryl. Keep being you. You know what you are dealing with! This guy is killing me. You were authentic and immaculate. :)!

  12. This guy is clearly part of the propaganda apparatus. It's really that hard to fathom that the intelligence agencies(spy's) actually spy on people. I've looked into her lawsuit and the hacking came from government IP addresses. They went as far as uploading classified files onto her computer. So they wanted to not only discredit her but left room for possible jail time. Nice… way to go Obama administration.

  13. Of course, she is totally right, man! Mr. Richard Stallman programmer genuous has already stated that software is being controled in a remote way.

  14. There was a time when I would have laughed and call this woman a complete mental case. In this day and this age I call her a pioneer. I watched her lecture on Ted X about astro turf and I have to tell you it's frightening.

  15. Chris Hayes should apologize to Sharyl for being so mocking to her…. and with all the new FBI / DOJ crimes and 1st and 4th amendment. Look what the Obama administration to James Rosen!!
    "The U.S. Justice Department under the Obama administration was so frustrated by his reporting on U.S. intelligence about North Korea that it conducted a leak investigation into his sources."

  16. Gee MSNBC, i don't see a 2nd part video to watch/listen to re: this (as Chris Hayes promised us). "Is there any way you can prove this 2nd part of an interview exists?" This leaves me somewhat concerned/skeptical if not.

    Hint hint. (all the way around)

  17. Chris can't even get her name right. It's AttkiSSon, not AttkINson. Back to the basics, Chris, and power to you, Sharyl.

  18. This woman has an incredible amount of integrity when not mentioning names, even when someone she trusts told her right out who was behind it. But think about this, what was the article about? Why would nobody other than that person -or anyone linked to it do this?

  19. MSNBC HACK ….. YOU ASKED HER ON WITH A ON GOING LITIGATION KNOWING SOME THINGS CAN NOT BE DISCUSSED. THEN ASK FOR SPECIFIC NAME AND DATE AND TRY THE CASE ON THE SHOW.

  20. This dude literally gets paid to be a shi**y interviewer. Its super clear just from the video its more thank a backspace key

  21. The capability to remotely operate a Windows computer is built into Windows. You can turn it on and allow someone to perform operations on your computer.

  22. They did the same thing with my computer, but they went further by stalking me, slandering me and more.
    I'm an innocent victim.

  23. Stupid twit, it's a known fact the NSA monitor all communications in the USA and probably worldwide. Are you really that uninformed? Sheryl Attkisson has more integrity in her little finger than you have in your whole body!

  24. This Chris Hayes 'excuse for a journalist' is, unsurprisingly, just as convoluted & obtuse as Rachel "MadCow". The sadly inept "extrapolator" that he is……who's whining efforts to "find the REAL truth" are of no significance whatsoever, to anyone.

  25. Hayes comes over as a smug bully. She's classy enough to handle his desperate need to ignore in his own world HE gets stuck with people who don't give HIM names.

  26. What happened in Benghazi was simple: Obama didn't want the political fallout of a blood bath of Lubyan civilian protesters, so he threw Ambassador Stevens under the bus and refused to let the Marines go in to rescue him.

  27. ONE SET OF RULES FOR THE ELITE, ANOTHER FOR JOE PUBLIC….. NOW WE REALLY DO LIVE IN RUSSIA. THEY=NSA

  28. This guy is a moron. He pre-supposes her claims are unfounded and them makes the suggestion she's trying to get on Fox News? Seriously?

  29. I know… I know … what the guy says is true …. he can't independently check this. She did offer up the fact that independent experts confirmed that her computer had been subjected to high level attack but…
    Who thinks someone would do this? Who thinks there could be people prepared to sink to any level who happen to work in the government? Who thinks she's telling the truth? Who thinks the MSM is biased?

  30. Chris Hayes is using "pump and mine" tactics the whole time, instead of asking questions as a journalist. He says, paraphrasing "Ive already gone through all your book and what youve said" and then never lets Sharyll talk about it. He spent the whole interview avoiding talking about what actually happened, and tried to mine Sharyll for her sources, probably knowing she wouldnt say who they are, thereby calling into question her sources and entire story. He did to her what White House officials did to her.

  31. This interviewer wasn't. He was non-stopped attacking her without an apparent reason. There is a huge amount of evidence that the US Government surveilled its citizens, was this dweep not aware of it ?

  32. Chris Hayes annual salary: $6,000,000 per year.
    Just another high paid mouthpiece for the establishment, acting like a journalist. Kinda
    like Stephen Colbert acting like an edgy comedian, being a mouthpiece for democrats.
    What an A$$, both of you.

  33. If you will install Ubuntu Linux that will NEVER happen. Ditch Microsoft and Apple for Linux. Over ten years and No downtime and Not a penny spent for anything. No back doors. https://www.ubuntu.com/security

  34. We get you lost interviewer. Its beyond your brain and intel. Where did you go to a college anyway??? Sharyl is higher seasoned to this twirp of MSNBS that completely bought and paid to pitch an agenda of the ownerships behind their hired.

  35. Queue X-files theme music.. "I want to believe…" Put on your tin foil hats you right wingnuts.. Sheryl is one of you too, just had posed as an unbiased real journalist for decades until Trump and MAGA finally triggered her 100%.

  36. This guy says "big claims require big cohabitation". This coming from a "news" outlet who pushed the Russian hoax narrative for more then 2 years with little to now evidence.

  37. Why is everyone so surprised? The IT department where I work routinely needs to get control of our computers especially if we are having issues loading, installing or setting up applications on our desktops. However, the administrator typically has to ask for permission from the owner of that PC in order to get control. A little pop up box is sent from the administrator requesting permission to gain control which you then click accept or reject. We do this all the time with our enterprise level Win 7 and Win 10 machines. What she witnessed I've seen many times albeit only after granting administrative privileges to our administrator (of course one's computer must be "on" and connected to the company LAN). Once granted permission the remote user is allowed full and complete control of your PC. Sitting there watching this happen to your PC looks kind of weird and ghostly. I've asked our administrator if its actually possible to get access without asking and she said "off record" yes but its because our computers are set up to allow this in case of emergency. There are strong legal reasons that they don't ever do it. Unless the company can produce a valid reason for doing so they can be sued by the employee. Kind of a gray area because we are required to sign an agreement concerning the companies legal right, as owners of the PC and LAN, to have access to them anytime they want. Any content generated on a company PC belongs to the company. So in theory, all an IT department administrator needs is to have your PC connected and turned "on" to get access to it. They can even work in the background without needing anything showing on your screen and unless you're using that particular application you wouldn't know it. I suspect thats what happened to her. Someone had gained access (likely via malware similar to what the Israelis used to gain access to those Iranian PCs in their nuclear facilities a few years ago), and was attempting to edit a file in her docs folder. They would have known she was using the application at the time so I suspect this was to send her a message or sign if you will, that she was being watched. But yes, what happened to her absolutely real. If you're connected to a corporate LAN or the Internet and your PC is on then your activities can be monitored. It would require a small piece of malware to do it though.

  38. In 2003 I suffered a remote computer intrusion, cyber stalking and harassment. Not long after I started to notice co-workers and neighbors began to participate in monitoring and watching me. I had $15000 stolen from a checking account and numerous instances of FBI agents showing up at the college I attended to speak with me but not explaining what I was under surveillance for. I subsequently lost my professional credentials, career, home and belongings. I also suffered an emotional and psychological break down. The US government has never been held accountable for what happened to me. To this day I still find myself being targeted online or even by people in my community.

  39. It sounds like Chris Hayes is trying to talk her out of this "idea" that there is a government entity hacking her computer. Why is that so difficult to believe? I suspect he is following orders like so many pseudo journalists are taking these days. I believe you Sharyl.

  40. Why isn't the truth the truth why does the M.S.M defend the democrats if they are the ones doing wrong and same goes for the Republican's doing wrong what happend to the days the Media watching government no matter what party is in office

  41. Haha! MSNBC reporting on liberal bias….MSNBC 'journalists' are as biased as you can get….nothing more than Trump haters. FAKE NEWS.

  42. It is impossible to be hack remotely without a connection to the internet for those who don't know and looking for an alternative.

  43. Little Harry Potter turned media propaganda hack. Or no, maybe he's the kid in Peter Pan missing the top hat. This guy reminds me of the little shrimp in high school who ran around like an annoying fly frantically trying to get any girl to go out with him. Attkisson is the classic example of how hard core investigative reporting goes when you go at Democrats instead of Republicans. Even liberal Bob "deep throat" Woodward admitted that when he stated publicly that "sequestration" that arose out of the GOP/Obama budget battle actually was Obama's idea after he was blaming the Republicans for it, he got a very "nasty" personal call from a White House official.

  44. The MSM takes accusations about Trump and runs with it while at the time having absolutely no proof and without question continued for two years to berate besmirch and attempt to destroy the credibility of the President and one of your own makes an accusation and you ask for proof, sounds like someone has tied their shoes too tight and is suffering from a lack of Oxygen.

  45. This guy is n aggressive jerk, doesn't know or understand how to deal with her answers. .

    Yes she's a rate classic breed of good journalism. I believed she was hacked, period.

    May Almighty God's divine blessings, graces and virtues, be bestowed upon Sheryl Atkinson & her family always and forevermore. Alleluia, Alleluia, Amen. 🙏❤🙏❤🙏❤

  46. Chris says CBS reported on Benghazi far more then ABC or NBC. But that was not sharyls complaint. What she said was, They would not run my story on Benghazi. Which simply means they ran lies far more then ABC or NBC. Nice try Chris.

  47. Chris Hayes is totally inept, but in this case he knows what he's doing. By badgering her on the same question over and over again trying to goad her into giving an answer, which if she had, MSNBC would have dissected the interview and rearranged it into a more damning version. Fortunately she saw through it and kept her composure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *